Hi Tom,
I agree with you about not using food for packaging. Unfortunately, in many cases, the recycled content is marketed as "residuals" that would otherwise be landfilled. Partly true, but, if you didn't have the product in the first place, their would be no "residuals". Its a vicious circle because then the original user can say "our waste is recycled" and the recycler can say "we use recycled materials" and no one looks at how bad growing corn actually is for the environment, people's health and for the economy in the long term. I think it would be better to compost residuals, at least in some cases, rather than make plates which will then get thrown in the landfill. Corn in the Midwest, sugarcane in Florida, soybeans in Brazil - these industries are environmentally destructive, yet the green washing wave calms peoples fears because they are "recycling" their waste. At least if they composted and kept the nutrients in the field, they might use fewer fertilizers and pesticides.

My definition of EXPORTER in this scenario is wrong. While the US is a net exporter, the definition is that the US exports more ethanol than it imports. Sorry for the mistake!

Bingo! Though perhaps to varying degree, I agree on all counts. As with ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel, it sounds good at first, but the hard holistic realities take it to a net negative. The recyclers' early concerns/warnings of polluting the PET recycling stream (as undeveloped as it may be in the US) were only the canary in the mine.

I find your comments rather mis-guided. Are you upset at plant based bioresins such as Ingeo, Mirel, and others or is your rant about the production of ethanol fuels ?????

First of all, if you had some understanding of the manufacturing process of any of the bioresins or ethanol for that matter, you would know and understand that only a small part of the kernal is used to make either the ethanols or bioresins. The remaining parts of the corn kernal and residuals from the production of said materials is still used for typical "foods" production. Millers corn (one on the most plentiful excess materials from both bioresin and ethanol production) is sent onwards for traditional use as animal feed or further processing into various uses as corn meal. To keep things simple, only a small part of the kernal is "distilled" for the products you just do not like. The rest still go to traditional food chain use.

In addtion, your rant on pricing of soybeans, wheat etc., has no merit at all with regards to the production of fuels or bioresins. These are all commodities traded worldwide and the prices are affected by such things as draught, pestilance, demand and other similar conditions. And what is so bad about a farmer trying to make more money on his crops?? Most farmers are pretty savvy at betting on what crop to grow in any given year, with an eye on crop rotation so as not to wear out the soil improperly. That is how modern farming is done.

And, as you say "BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE". Let's take your assertion on rising sugar costs. First of all, sugar prices in the U.S. are highly regulated, actually subsidized heavily by the U.S. govt (USDA). On world commodity markets, there are 2 prices for sugars. One is world-scale price, and the other is US price. The US price is always higher due to import law restrictions to keep lower cost foreign sugars out (due to a very strict import quota limit on foreign sugars) in addition to the artificial price supports mandated by the USDA. Similar to peanuts grown in the U.S. You have to have a special license from the USDA to grow peanuts, and most peanut "farmers" do not even own land anymore who hold the licenses. The lease out the rights. Hence higher protected costs here in the U.S. But I digress.

Recently there was a court ruling that banned all sales of sugar beets in the U.S. due to an inadvertant regulation oversight of GMO based sugar beets by the USDA, essentially taking hundreds of thousands of tons of raw sugar off the markets. Well, guess what happens with such a commodity when suddenly a major market is short of products?, yes that is right, the commodity traders smell blood and prices escalate accordingly. None of this has anything to do with PLA, bioresins or other ethanol products.

So one has to respect your opinion and dislike for PLA, but next time, before the rant starts, get your understanding and facts of how world commodity markets work and operate. None of your arguments hold water at all.

Thomas, by raising these issues you have highlighted the most common misunderstandings and misconceptions about biopolymers such as Polyactic acid PLA.

Misconception 1: PLA removes food crops for industrial purposes

NatureWorks is the world’s first and largest commercial supplier of PLA, and uses less than 1/20th of 1% (0.05%) of the annual global corn crop to manufacture Ingeo. Ingeo doesn’t require corn, it only needs plant sugars. The future for Ingeo is that it will be made from cellulosic raw material — agricultural wastes and non-food plants. The plant sugars that are fermented into lactic acid and then made into Ingeo PLA are derived from field corn that is already grown for many industrial and consumer end-uses.

Misconception 2: Ingeo ends of up landfills because of a lack of composting facilities, so there is no actual benefit for a bioresin like NatureWorks Ingeo.

Until Ingeo became available in commercial quantity, foodservice operations such as schools, universities, hospitals, restaurants, and supermarkets had only one option for food residuals contaminated with plastic foodservice items and packaging and that was to send both food and plastic to the landfill.

Today, food contaminated Ingeo foodservice ware and packaging can be and is diverted from landfills to commercial composing operations. Additional commercial composting facilities are coming on line all the time. The City of Seattle recently banned petrochemical-based foam meat trays and many retailers and restaurants are now using Ingeo foam. The city estimates it will stop sending 6,000 tons of plastic and plastic-coated paper single-use food service ware and leftover food to the landfills every year. That’s the equivalent of eliminating 225 shipping containers of waste, or a train more than 100 cars long. This is a significant benefit and it is being done today.

Misconception 3: Plastic is plastic no matter what it is made from and what we need is higher recycling rates.

Yes, we do need higher recycling rates for plastic. And, with only 6.8% of all plastics recovered for recycling in the United States in 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/solidwaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf), it is short sighted to bash PLA about composting and recycling without acknowledging the short comings of the current state of plastics recycling.

The other ~93% that’s not being recycled causes an environmental landfill burden. Also know that the production of plastic contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy usage. As compared with the common packaging resins, for instance, each pound of Ingeo resin releases about 60% less greenhouse gas emissions and consumes about 50% less non-renewable energy. These are significant benefits no matter where the product ends up after use. Meanwhile, NatureWorks and others in the sustainability movement are working hard to ensure that bioresins such as Ingeo do not suffer the same landfill fate of the vast majority of the existing plastics today.

We want to be clear on our position. We believe in recycling wherever it is possible and are striving to make recycling of Ingeo a reality. We believe that composting of Ingeo only makes sense when it enables the landfill diversion of food waste. We’re encouraged by a new recycle model for Ingeo (and, indeed, any PLA) that’s already being demonstrated by third parties such as US based BioCor and EU based Galactic – companies that have entered the market because they see a viable business in transforming post-consumer Ingeo into lactic acid, a process known as feedstock recovery. And, these processors are packaging neutral – they’ll take Ingeo in a broad variety of formats, and through feedstock recovery, transform it back into lactic acid, the basic Ingeo building block.

Ingeo doesn’t drive up food prices or appreciably consume food crops. Ingeo does offer a landfill diversion opportunity for food contaminated plastic packaging and food service ware. Ingeo significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy use as compared to petrochemical-based plastic packaging. The sustainability movement is working on alternative end-of-life scenarios and aiming for cradle-to-cradle reuse. NatureWorks has peer reviewed life cycle analyses backing up carbon footprint statements — science, not opinions or rants. As a society we need new innovations and new answers to old problems. Ingeo isn’t a total solution. But it is a start.

Steve Davies
Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs
NatureWorks LLC

I fully agree with Thomas Aris, PLA or Bioplastics is not at all 'green' or 'sustainable' due to various negative attributes, as pointed out by him.

A number of LCA studies have shown them to have a very adverse impact on the environment. Please see:

(http://www.kunststoffverpackungen.de/en/news/LCA%20waste%20bags%20-%20St...) - Life Cycle assessment

and (www.greenbag.com.au/UserFiles/Boustead_LCA_Assessment.pdf ) : Chet Chaffee and Bernard R. Yaros, Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags.

Above studies are eye openers; still, there are several FMCG companies who are trying to project to the gullible consumers that they are 'green' by using PLA bottles/packaging.

'Reduce, Reuse and Recycle' is the best strategy and PLA/Bioplastics are not compatible.

At best, using PLA/Bioplastics is a 'fashion statement', which is doing much harm to the environment and society.

Biodegradability is not really important when a plastic is safely contained in a landfill. (It's not going anywhere. It's not filling the guts of sea birds. It's not leaching toxic materials into ground water.) On the other hand, biodegradable materials will decay if improperly discarded, for example if tossed on the side of the road, or if floating in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

I don't mean to imply that PLA is perfect, but rather I just wanted to point out a mitigating factor and a possibly overlooked benefit.

Just for the heck of it, consider the actual facts, as Stonyfield did. Please see the quote below from Packaging World, ESPECIALLY THE LAST LINE:
***************************************

The world’s largest organic yogurt producer, Stonyfield Farm, Londonderry, NH, has embraced bioplastics, launching new plant-based packaging for all of its multipack form/fill/seal containers. The new polylactic acid cups, made from Ingeo™ resin from NatureWorks LLC, replace previous packaging made from high-impact polystyrene, resulting in 48% less greenhouse gas emissions.

“When we do packaging initiatives, we usually try to reduce GHGs by at least 5 percent,” Stonyfield vice president of Natural Resources Nancy Hirshberg told Packaging World in an exclusive interview before the October 13 launch. “When we approached this project, it was really a priority for us to get out of polystyrene. We were hoping it would be at least a net neutral. So when we got the life-cycle assessment back, we were stunned.”

Steve brings up important issues that reflect what appears to be the leading edge of public awareness of this topic, when people think of these things at all. Most people are surprised that the average Chinese person has much more awareness of packaging issues than the average American does. In fact, Americans lag just about everybody in the 'first world' except the British! Americans, however, do respond well to marketing.

The comments Steve's post brought up present valid facts, statistics, and viewpoints.
I would like to add a different, broader, perspective. The US farm subsidy program is of high economic significance to powerful interests. Unless or until an opposing economic force counteracts it, government policy will lumber on its current trajectory, despite it's apparent folly and alarm it raises. The packaging industry must deal with these market distortions, just like we have to pay taxes.

Rising petroleum prices will cause plant resin prices to rise in step because petroleum is a major agricultural input. Just like ethanol, plant resisns may seem 'greener' than they actually are to the public, for a while. The marketing battles have just begun. I believe an important property of truth is its durability. It may take a while, but the truth will be told.

Plant resins are here to stay and even though they aren't perfect ecologically, they represent a vast improvement over conventional plastics. If the oceanic garbage patches were all PLA, the environment would not be facing the long term destruction is is now undergoing.

Unfortunately, conventional plastics will be made until the last drop of petroleum is sucked out of the ground. Mere environmental concerns are not enough to stop this economic juggernaut; only equal and opposing economic forces will; be they disaster, war or other interests. My hope is that plastic won't always be squandered by using it as single use packaging; far better to use it for durable goods. As a species, we need to get more value from something that is so ultimately expensive.

Conventional plastics are not inert, and are not harmless in landfills. It just depends on how short/long sighted your viewpoint is. As plastic breaks down over the millenia, its monomers - it's very molecules, are mildly toxic to life, such as acting as hormone disrupters among other serious concerns . No big deal in small doses, but at our current scale it is a big deal. The biology of our planet will be forever be impacted by our short-sighted behaviours now.

The real answer is 'back to the future' paper based packaging. Wood and other celllulostic paper inputs are not highly petro-input intensive and are a part of the life cycle. That is, the carbon that is emitted when paper decomposes is re-absorbed by its replacement plants, not adding to the overall carbon load. On a more immediate scale, paper also enjoys extremely high recycling rates because it has an established recycling stream. In landfills, all of which will ultimately fail, the paper content, as well as the PLA content, won't pose the harm plastics and other common chemicals will.

The main issues packaging users have with paper packaging versus plastic and plant resisns are: attractive visibility of consumer goods, appropriate product protection, product differentiation, and cost. Simple, clever and elegant designs combined with production at scale are addressing these shortcomings and promise an authentic sustainable solution.

My company, Eco Vision, is only beginning to scratch the surface of genuine green packaging. There are almost unlimited opportunities to fulfill with fiber. Focus your efforts on the real answers, not half measures. I challenge you the think outside the plastic box and explore solutions that aren't petroleum clones.

Looking forward, the most sustainable packaging will employ high fibrous inputs with moderate plant resin inputs and minimal metals and synthetics. When the dust settles in a generation or two (hopefully sooner), this will become the dominant packaging paradigm. In the meantime, the march has begun.

Interesting reflections, Thomas! The Harvard Business Review just published a great article about sustainability as a business megatrend that might interest you. It's available here: http://hbr.org/2010/05/the-sustainability-imperative/ar/1.

I'm constantly asking myself which package is "better" than the next for our clients at Empty Boxes. I think that weight and recyclability alone are arbitrary unless both packages share identical life cycle traits. The greatest impact of a package is usually found elsewhere -- how far the package travels, the raw material's relative abundance in nature, the impact of the manufacturing process, end-of-life options, etc.

If you'd like to discuss your options, you can reach me at miranda@emptyboxes.com.

Thomas -

I think the correct answer is that both are "better." There currently is no truly sustainable packages out there, everything has an impact. What we call sustainable packaging is actually just more sustainable packaging. They are designed to minimize the impact of the package on the environment, society, and drive profits (all three legs of the sustainability stool). So in either case that you listed (moving to a lightweight non-recyclable or moving to a recyclable heavier package) if you assume that the original package is heavy and non-recyclable, both are better from where we were from an environmental standpoint. The next factors to weigh are impact on society as well as financial impact to the company. If the light weight non-recyclable material costs 45% less than current and the heavy recyclable material costs 200% of current, those definitely have to be taken into consideration.

It is also important to remember that in most products the package actually has a significantly smaller impact than the product it is protecting when you compare LCAs, so you must make sure that you don't impact shelf life negatively, increase damage during shipping, change scrap rates, yields, or OEE as you are running as those all effect the overall impact of the package (i.e. if the lightweight non-recyclable package increases scrap by 10%, decreases efficiencies by 10%, shortens the shelf life by 10% and increases damage by 10% where the heavier recyclable package does none of those things the discussion is very different).

The third thing to consider is the availability of the recycling infrastructure of the material you are considering. Just because it can be recycled doesn't mean it is recycled (PLA is a great example, it is not difficult from a technology stand point to recycle, and facilities are actually being looked at to do this, but it does not have wide amounts of collection necessary to truly claim recyclability...yet). If you are making the change to truly be more sustainable the actuals of the recycling need to be important (if you are doing it to solely make a claim, they may be less important to you...I'm not saying they should be less important, but they may be). In addition recycling rates are important in determing impact. If you are doubling the weight from current, and that material is only recycled at a 20% rate, then you have probably made a negative impact because you have introduced 200% more material, of which only 20% is getting recycled.

A great question to be posed, and hopefully a great discussion starter. It is a complex topic, with lots to consider. Depending on the company's values, relative stances on similar issues (i.e. have they made huge investments and partnerships in the recycling industry and its values? Have they focused all their other work on lightweighting?), and potential risks my recommendation to them would vary on which is truly "better."

Paper, PET, and HDPE are recycled, but other materials are not, to any significant extent. You can have your cake and eat it to with micro-biodegradable plastic. See http://earthnurture.com to learn more.

Sustainability differs from situation to situation and person to personal.But here I found a different meaning of sustainability.I think this is one new concept added here to attract viewers towards them in a short time.

Although receipts likely contribute a very small part to the waste stream, I find myself obsessively recycling all of them whenever I can, and feeling somewhat sheepish and geeky when I do so, precisely because the environmental impact of this action has to be pretty small.

It does seem like a ridiculous amount of paper, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is obsessive and compulsive over this!

I have often opted out of taking a receipt at the gas pump because they do give me the option. I will have documentation on my credit card statement, so why take a receipt I will simply recycle or possibly lose?

Don't forget that companies are now printing out coupons with the receipts based upon your purchases.

The other addition that seems sometimes odd is the need to sign a paper copy for the credit card. A number of stores are going to all electronic where I sign a pressure sensitive pad. Sometimes I use the pad for swiping the card, but still sign a paper copy. Some stores don't require signing for anything under $25. Some I would have to sign for the pack of gum. I'm sure the merchant accounts have some say in this. I understand the need to protect the merchant for the purchase, but I wonder in this day and age, why do I have to sign a piece of paper? Is it not more cost effective to have these signatures electronically stored for the unlikely event of having to prove the person did make the purchase?

I agree completely, both from a waste perspective and a consumer perspective. I recently purchased a single item from a grocery store, and my receipt was longer than a foot. Then if I decide that I may want to return the item, I have to physically file the receipt. I would much rather have a receipt e-mailed to me (U-Haul does this very effectively), perhaps to a dedicated receipts e-mail address, which I could then store electronically. I would also love secure software that would pull my e-reciepts, add them up, and analyze them to give an accurate, itemized account of my spending that I could use for monthly budgeting.

What a humorous and true article ~
It's funny to see that other people do the same as me!

I did a post too on recycling receipts here, check it out if you like:
http://vegliving.info/2009/08/11/green-living-recycle-that-receipt/

Thank you!
Brian

I once lived in a small city with MANDATORY recycling laws. So we separated newspapers from corrugated boxes and other packaging. We cut both tops and bottoms out of tin cans. We removed labels and rinsed the cans and sharp lids (at great expense and time as this city also had expensive water rates) and flattened the tin cans for recycling. On the given day we placed all of our recycle bins and garbage at the roadside.

Then came the day when the big city reporter followed the recycling truck to the landfill tipping place and saw it all dumped together!!!! Why? Because there was no effective or efficient recycling infrastructure !

Needless to say the mandatory recycling laws were rescinded when this was made public.

When there is a demand, the material will be recycled. No demand and recycling is just another creative way to tax the populace.

Tom,

I read your comments, and agree completely. We have lived in places (such as WA state) where their regulations are very intense, whereas in other parts of the country, there is little or no interest in recycling.

Chuck DeWitt

Mr. Oris:

I love to hear "instruct" us on recycling, sustainability and the like and then create thousands of printed pages of documents that none of them read. First step? Practice what you preach!! It would be amazing if all governments went paperless.

Try it for yourself. I don't generate printed materials. I ask all communications and documents be submitted to me in digital form (no hard copy). It is simply amazing how simple filing, sorting, storing paperwork becomes when there isn't any. If I could eliminate junk mail, catalogues, notices (that could be submitted digitally), I would have little to recycle or throw away.

I see our society trying to find the "big" solutions to sustainability when the best opportunities are the thousands of little steps that cost nothing to implement but yield huge reductions in energy consumption and massive elimination of land fill needs.

Individuals can solve our problems....if we pay attention, think, and take small steps.

Thanks for the post and the opportunity to respond.

I think energy is such a huge problem that it has to be digested by taking one bite at a time, don't you? Recycling is working -- but we don't have the market for all the materials that are collected. So burning it appears to be the next step in the recycling trendline -- much as I hate that concept. When we burn anything -- it creates heat and heat creates climate change. We have to change the entire system and that takes a zigzag process of demand and supply, supply and demand. We can help it along by BUYING items with recycled content as well as reducing our own waste. And reusing as many containers as possible for secondary uses. We're getting there...slowly, but more and more people are making changes in their work and personal choices. Carolyn